Articles Posted in Talent

The good people at Laurence Simons, the global executive search firm, sent me data about compensation among Brazilian and other Latin American in-house lawyers. If you are interested in the entire PowerPoint, email Berta Papp.

In mid-2010, the median base salary of 31 Brazilian Regional Directors and General Counsel was US$202,915. That sum compares reasonably to median compensation levels for in-house lawyers in the United States, although not as much as lawyers at that same level of seniority. The reason for the basic comparability is not far to find: “Our research focused solely on the LATAM operations of leading and household name US and European multinationals with the exception of the banking & financial services sectors.” What this means is that large multinationals observe pay parity to a considerable extent in Brazil.

The median base salary for 16 lawyers of equivalent level in the rest of Latin America was a much more modest US$73,000. The Brazilian median seems high, but the $73,000 seems too low. It is hard to understand why Brazilian lawyers of multinationals command such high salaries relative to their counterparts elsewhere in South America.

You are what you wear, sort of. One of the quick polls taken by the Law.com website devoted to in-house counsel gives a glimpse of what those lawyers who responded wear. The poll asked “Does your office have a dress code?” With no pretense at statistical reliability, the data, as they say, is what it is.

By far the most common guideline is “Business casual” (53%), which doesn’t include jeans or t-shirts (or a woman’s equivalent). I’ll chip in that shorts are embargoed also and whether sneakers make the grade is doubtful. Old-school coats and ties, as in “Business formal” had 15%, whereas the compromise “Dressy casual” was almost as common (12%). Jackets may differentiate business casual from dressy casual (See my post of Oct. 22, 2005 on dress codes.).

The Silicon Valley look of “I wear flip-flops” (19%) suggests that anything goes. Well, perhaps not pierced lips, sleeve tattoos, micro-minis, muscle shirts and baseball caps. Even if business formal does not prevail, ties and jackets are likely to come out for important meetings.

ALM Legal Intelligence obtained 2009 data from 116 law departments. One of the questions must have asked about positions eliminated that year broken down by lawyers, paralegals, and support staff – both filled and vacant. The results appear in Corp. Counsel, Dec. 2010 at 85.

The graphic doesn’t say whether the results are medians or averages, but what struck me was that the lawyer positions eliminated, both filled and vacant total 3.3 whereas the non-lawyer positions eliminated total 4.4. That means general counsel cut 33 percent more frequently from the non-lawyer rolls than from the lawyer rolls. Over time, that inclination leads law departments to become lawyer-heavy.

A second interpretation from the results as printed is that the total cuts came to 7.7, so these must have been averages. Most law departments are small and the median in this group could not have terminated almost eight headcount.

The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) has a wide following in corporate America. Many law departments have their members complete the instrument and purportedly make good use of personality preferences depicted on four dichotomies, such as extroversion-introversion. It is widely thought to tap something real and useful about the way people think, decide, and respond to the world. Even so, an article in the NYSBA J, Nov./Dec. 2010 at 14, clobbers the MBTI because “Myers Briggs does not have a standardized base and lacks construct validity.”

“A standardized base for psychology assessments is a large and relatively current sample of people who definitely have the characteristics of the psychological disorder or disorders (sic) being assessed.” The author says that no standardized base exists for Myers Briggs, nor, by the way, for the famous Rorschach inkblot tests.

The second charge goes to the lack of MBTI’s construct validity. “A construct is research-based and its meaning is agreed upon by a consensus of professionals qualified in the appropriate field of study.” To have construct validity, there would need to be a shared definition of “personality” and experienced professionals would have to agree, in the main, that the instrument actually reflects that real-world, understood phenomenon of personality. Both sides of construct validity fall very far short for Myers Briggs.

Whew! Quite a topic, so I will only make one comment. It follows reading about a study by the GAO of female managers which found that 74 percent of male managers were married but just 59 percent of female managers, “suggesting that women who worked their way to the top made greater personal sacrifices than did men.” That value-laden quote comes from Worth.com, Dec./Jan. 2011 at 40.

However you try to explain that finding, I realized that the marital status of in-house counsel has had not one mention on this wide-ranging blog. Were I to offer one comment, hesitant in this climate of vengeful ideologues, I would say that it helps a lawyer climb the career ladder to have a spouse or partner that others find acceptable, pleasant, and a credit to the lawyer.

Sometimes confused, demographics does not equal diversity. As I understand it, demographics primarily has to do with differences between people because of their age. The generational divide in law departments, if such exists, has received little attention on this blog (See my post of Dec. 14, 2008: early summary of what had been posted about demographics.). We read all the time about Generation X and Millennials but my faith in those grand generalizations is exceeded by my faith in astrology. Maybe that is why my references to age-related differences in law departments are muted at best.

Generational diversity is present in most law departments that have existed a decade or more but what to do with that patent fact mystifies me (See my post of Sept. 4, 2005: demographics of law departments; Nov. 14, 2005: related to demographic changes; Jan. 6, 2006: social network compared to demographic diversity; Jan. 20, 2006: cognitive style diversity more important than demographic diversity; March 16, 2006: long-in-the-tooth veterans and knowledge loss; April 30, 2006: demographic change; July 18, 2006: social changes include demographic shifts; Feb. 7, 2007: demographics tip against law departments; June 30, 2007: narcissism and demographic groups; and June 23, 2009: does background diversity help a team.).

Merck’s former general counsel, Kenneth Frazier, will take over as CEO in 2011 reports the NY Times, Dec. 1, 2010, at B5. Frazier had actually moved out of the law department and served for the past couple of years as president of the company’s global human health unit. The article adds later that in 2006 Pfizer named its general counsel, Jeffrey Kindler, as chief executive and that a year later Roche announced that Severin Schwan, holder of a law degree from the University of Innsbruck, would take over as CEO in 2008.

Many other examples exist of general counsel who rose to the top spot (See my post of March 9, 2009: Michael Critelli of Pitney-Bowes; May 26, 2007: GCs report to former GC with 10 references; and March 24, 2007: promoted general counsel with 8 references).

Nearly 2,000 in-house attorneys around the world completed a survey by Laurence Simons. From that 2010 In-House Global Salary & Benefits Survey at 12 we learn that almost 40 percent of them have 21-25 days of holiday per year and close to that many have 26-30 days. About 18 percent enjoy more than 30 holidays per year.

In the United States, in-house lawyers take off about 10 national holidays such as July 4th, Christmas and Thanksgiving. The report does not explain whether those allotments as described include established national holidays as compared to discretionary, personal paid vacation days (some military use the term “leave.”). Some companies also afford “personal days” and “sick days” (See my post of Feb. 22, 2009: vacations and holidays with 10 references.).

To request a copy of the full survey, write Naveen Tuli.

From the 2010 In-House Global Salary & Benefits Survey conducted by Laurence Simons (pg. 8) you can see 15 reasons why lawyers might resign. “[O]ver a third (40%) said it was because they wanted a new challenge or to further their career in a new environment. The traditionally popular motivation of higher salary was third at 12%. Other factors included a desire for more responsibility (10%) and a better work/life balance (7%).”

The notorious career path perceived to lead nowhere pushes ambitious lawyers to find their way elsewhere. So does boredom. If all you can see is an unchanging in-box, shift companies and hope for a change of pace. Money matters, but given approximately market compensation, the far more important satisfiers ae the quality and prospects of good work. To request a complimentary copy of the full survey, write Naveen Tuli.